- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7403 WP No. 16499 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.16499 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.KEMPAHANUMAIAH S/O LATE DODDAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 2. SRI.S.D.LENKAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LATE DODDAHANUMAIAH 3. SRI.LENKAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 4. SRI.RAJANNA S/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 5. SRI.HARISH S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 6. SRI.ANIL KUMAR S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 7. SRI.PRADEEPA S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7403 WP No. 16499 of 2024 ALL ARE RESIDING AT KADAMATHIKERE VILLA KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR - 572 130 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.NAGESH S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKURU DISTRICT TUMKURU - 572 101 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMKURU DISTRICT TUMKURU - 572 101 4. THE THASILDAR KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 101 5. SMT.RANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS W/O LATE GANGAHANUMAIAH 6. SMT.GANGALAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS D/O LATE GANGAHANUMAIAH R/A GAVIMATA RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 ARE RESIDING AT GAVIMATA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7403 WP No. 16499 of 2024 KASABA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.4; SRI.T.A.KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R.5 AND R.6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM R-2 TO 4 IN RESPECT OF IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY R-2 ON 18.11.2022 IN R.P NO.237/2022 (ANNEXURE-A) AND IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 15.03.2023 PASSED BY R-3 IN RA NO.1503/2022 (ANNEXURE-B) AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.02.2024 PASSED BY R-4 IN RRT(DIS).01/2023-24 (ANNEXURE-C) IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY NO.97 MEASURING 4.00 ACRES SITUATED AT KADUMATHIKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This captioned writ petition is filed assailing the impugned order dated 18.11.2022 passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-A, the order dated 15.03.2023 passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure-B and the order dated - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7403 WP No. 16499 of 2024 01.02.2024 passed by respondent No.4 - Tahasildar as per Annexure-C restoring the name of one Sanjeevaiah. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and 6 and learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 3. The petitioners have asserted that the lands in question are their ancestral properties. To substantiate their claim, they presented revenue entries dating back to 1968. Upon examining the RTCs, as evidenced in Annexure-F series, it becomes clear that the lands were recorded in the names of Doddahanumaiah and Chikkahanumaiah. The RTC reflects Doddahanumaiah holding 1 acre and 32 guntas, while the widow of Chikkahanumaiah, Siddamma, held 1 acre and 23 guntas. 4. Annexure-G consists of an unregistered partition deed executed in 1982 within Doddahanumaiah's family. Similarly, another inter-se partition deed involving Chikkahanumaiah’s family is presented at Annexure-J. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7403 WP No. 16499 of 2024 Despite being unregistered, the Revenue Authorities recognized these partitions and updated the mutations accordingly, reflecting the names of the parties in the RTC. Further, the legal heirs of Chikkahanumaiah, namely Siddamma and her children, sold 22 guntas of land to petitioner No. 2 through a registered sale deed dated 07.05.2007. 5. The private respondents contested the petitioners’ title by filing a comprehensive suit in O.S.No.116/2008, seeking a declaration of absolute ownership and recovery of possession. They also challenged the validity of the sale deed dated 07.05.2007, alleging it was void and not binding on them. The competent Civil Court dismissed this suit by judgment and decree dated 28.06.2018. In parallel, the petitioners filed four independent suits for injunction simplicitor, all of which were decreed in their favor, restraining respondent Nos. 5 and 6 from interfering with their peaceful possession. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7403 WP No. 16499 of 2024 6. Despite these outcomes, respondent Nos.5 and 6, without disclosing the dismissed suit, approached respondent No. 2 – Deputy Commissioner and initiated proceedings without impleading the petitioners, as evidenced by Annexure-A. The Deputy Commissioner, without due verification of records or hearing from all concerned parties, entertained the revision under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act and allowed the petition and remanded the matter to respondent No. 3 – Assistant Commissioner. 7. Following the remand, the Assistant Commissioner, again disregarding the necessity of hearing the contesting private parties, allowed the appeal and referred the matter to respondent No. 4 – Tahasildar. Subsequently, the Tahasildar commenced an enquiry without ensuring the participation of the petitioners, in clear violation of due process. 8. Upon learning about the ongoing proceedings, the petitioners sought to implead themselves and submitted - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7403 WP No. 16499 of 2024 relevant records, as evidenced by Annexure-Q.1. Despite being informed about the demise of the petitioners’ ancestors, the Tahasildar, through an impugned order at Annexure-C dated 05.12.2023, directed the restoration of Sanjeevaiah’s name on the ground that his name appeared in the RTC prior to 1968. This decision was made without due regard for the Civil Court’s judgment and seems influenced by extraneous considerations, raising questions about the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. 9. The handling of this case by respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4 is deeply concerning. The Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, and Tahasildar acted without adhering to procedural mandates, placing undue burdens on the constitutional courts, which are forced to address these frivolous and unwarranted decisions under Sections 128 and 129 of the KLR Act. 10. Considering that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 lost the civil suit and failed to challenge the mutation - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7403 WP No. 16499 of 2024 proceedings until now, they have lost the locus standi to contest the petitioners’ lawful possession. The Tahasildar’s order to restore Sanjeevaiah’s name, based on outdated RTC records, appears to be an attempt to circumvent the judgment rendered in O.S.No.116/2008. 11. This Court firmly holds that the actions of respondent No. 4 – Tahasildar lack any legal basis and directly contravene the judgment of the competent Civil Court. The restoration of Sanjeevaiah’s name, which reflects outdated records prior to 1969, disregards subsequent partitions, alienations, and the lawful mutations recorded over time. The order violates the procedural requirements set forth under Sections 128 and 129 of the KLR Act and appears to be influenced by extraneous factors. This is a fit case for initiating a departmental enquiry against the Tahasildar. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, should be directed to initiate proceedings and report compliance to the Registry of this Court. The learned AGA must ensure a copy of this - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7403 WP No. 16499 of 2024 order is forwarded to the Principal Secretary for necessary action. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 18.11.2022 passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner in R.P.No.237/2022 as per Annexure-A, the order dated 15.03.2023 passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.1503/2022 as per Annexure-B and the order dated 01.02.2024 passed by respondent No.4 - Tahasildar in RRT(Dis).01/2023-24 as per Annexure-C are set-aside. (iii) Respondent No.4 - Tahasildar is hereby directed to restore the names as they existed prior to passing of the order at Annexure-C. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7403 WP No. 16499 of 2024 (iv) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of order copy. (v) Learned AGA shall forthwith forward copy of this Order to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department to enable him to contemplate further course of action against respondent No.4 - Tahasildar. (vi) Learned AGA shall ensure that the compliance report is furnished before the Registry within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of order copy. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3